Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!ALASKA.BITNET!AXTBF
From: AXTBF@ALASKA.BITNET ("Tim Friest - programmer at large")
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Copyright Laws
Message-ID: <8905052120.aa10002@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>
Date: 6 May 89 02:07:50 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: AXTBF%ALASKA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 89

Bear with me for all the quotes...

>>Phil, Today you wrote:

>>> ...[who] CARES if it's
>>> legal?  I mean, if you're just going to use it yourself & not sell it -
>>> even if you're going to give it away free to a few friends - you're
>>> helping the computing community by providing More Computer Power to
>>> the People!

>>> To all those hung-up on legal codes as their only source of morality
>>> because they are too weak-minded to determine themselves whether an
>>> action is wrong or right.

>>  Advocating illegal activity, as you did in this posting...
[was stupid]

>> _Brint Cooper

>..."It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer
>program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation
>of that computer program provided:
> 1) That such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the
>   utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
>    it is used in no other manner, or
> 2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
>    all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued posession of
>    the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>   Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section
>may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which
>such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer
>of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only
>with the authorization of the copyright owner."
>United States Copyright Code title 17, &117 (17 USC 117)
>
>   And now, for an interpretation of the above text, quoted directly from the
>1976 Federal Copyright Act. Read part one. Ok, now this basically allows
>such things as users installing programs on their hard drives (in the IBM
>world many many programs require a hard drive, so the copying of software
>to it has to be allowed.)
>   As for part two, it basically states any program you lease or own may
>be modified by you in any way (deprotection, changing the number of guys
>you start with in your favorite arcade game, patching AppleWorks to not
>make you hit a bunch of keys on startup, etc.)  as long as they are destroyed
>along with transfer of the program (i.e. returned at end of lease, or sold
>to another person).
>
>   Thank you for listening, and I hope I've cleared the air on this one.

>jawaid bazyar

Sorry to quote so much, but I felt it was necessary.

Please note, the Illegal activity that Phil advocated was not copying the
ROMS, nor was it modifying the code.  It was passing out those copies or
modifications to anyone he felt like giving it to.  The law clearly states
that all copies must be used for archival purposes only or as an essential
step in the utilization of the program on the machine (this means 1 machine
not any machine) and that these copies are transferred or destroyed when
the original is sold.

The comment Phil made about letting the law decide what is right and wrong
is also very good.  Lets ignore the law (quoted earlier) and decide wether
it is wrong to pirate software (ROMs or otherwise).

When you purchase a program, some of the money goes to the programmer, some
to the company which markets the program, some to the business selling you
the program and some for materials suchs as disks and boxes...  Suppose I
was planning on buying a program and you gave me a copy instead.  Well, I
have basically stolen from the programmer, the marketting company, the box
manufacturer etc.  You are an accessory in this crime.

You might say stolen is a bit harsh.  Well, suppose I walk into a store and
put an item in my pocket and walk out.  I've obviously stolen that item.
Well, isn't pirating the same thing.  You get a program for which you didn't
pay.

Is it wrong to deprive a programmer of his livelyhood?
Is it wrong to deprive a company of its profits?

p.s. I know of a major company which recently discontinued all developement
     on their products for a certain computer brand due to lack of sales of
     an earlier release.  Do you think "providing More Computer Power to the
     People!" through piracy had anything to do with this decision???

AXTBF@ALASKA.BITNET = Tim Friest

disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this message are my own and in no
way represent those of my employer, America, or the human race.